09 January 2007 4:03 PM

Some responses to correspondents

Read Peter Hitchens only in the Mail on Sunday

The reason for writing about the death penalty is that it is both important and interesting, and raises many instructive questions about the nature of justice and of morality. I have also found that most people, on both sides of the argument, adopt fixed positions which are immune from facts and logic. I live in hope that sooner or later they will begin to pay attention. It matters. I am critical of unthinking zealots on both sides of this quarrel, and despise crude calls for vengeance just as much as any Guardian-reading liberal does. By the way, a note to one correspondent: I have never advocated flogging, mainly because of the nasty effect I believe it would have on those who have to do the flogging, and groan with boredom at the silly cliche 'hang'em and flog'em'. Why will people refuse to argue in a civilised and honest way? Who do they hope to fool by misrepresenting opponents?

At some point in my long journey away from the political, moral and cultural Left, I found that I could not easily answer the argument for a death penalty. I had, for many years, opposed execution as a matter of course, and had believed this was the natural position of any civilised person. So this realisation, like many of the experiences I had while changing my mind, was none too welcome. I had a choice. Should I suppress my doubts and continue to assert an opinion I did not really believe? Or should I think about it, and be willing to change my opinion if I concluded that I had been wrong? This is why I try to treat the arguments of abolitionists with care, sympathy and respect. I used to be one of them. I don't tend to get the same consideration in return, presumably because they are scared of their own doubts, and express their fear by getting angry with anyone who stimulates those doubts.

I spent much time researching the history, nature and measurable effects of the death penalty. I grasped the important fact that the death penalty in the USA is largely retained for political show, and does not exist as a regular or even frequent (let alone timely) punishment for heinous murder in any of the 50 states. Even so, there does seem to be some relation between the existence of the penalty and the murder rate in some states.

I witnessed two executions in different US jurisdictions. I have now, in a less direct but still unsettling way, witnessed a third. At the end, I still found the act of execution ugly, distressing and squalid. Who could not? But was this an argument against execution, any more than the horror of war (which I have also glimpsed) is an argument against defending oneself against aggression? I think not.

I concluded that there was an unanswerable argument for bringing execution back under strict conditions - that is to say, after trial in a properly constituted court with the presumption of innocence, an independent jury, a free press, the possibility of appeal and of reprieve (Saddam Hussein had none of these).

I thought hard about the claim that the danger of an innocent person being executed is a complete argument against the death penalty. I think it's false and evasive. Those who advance this argument do not accept such a stringent condition on many other policies of which they approve, and which can be absolutely guaranteed to cause the deaths of innocents. For example, the release of convicted murderers from prison can be reliably statistically predicted to lead to the deaths of innocents. It has this effect in Britain at the rate of roughly two homicides every three years. But it is not ruled out for that reason.

Similarly, those liberals who opened the way for the Iraq war by supporting the idealistic bombing of Serbia knew perfectly well that their policy would bring about the deaths of innocents. It did so. Non-monstrous non- war-criminals such as the make-up lady at Belgrade TV were blown to bits by kindly, liberal, idealistic bombs, and I hope these people appreciated the difference at the time between such bombs and the ordinary, cruel conservative type. Yet liberal backers of the War on Slobodan did not then withhold their support from this action on the grounds that it had caused the predictable killing of innocents. They have not since said that they wished they had not endorsed this action. The bombing of Serbia, unlike that of Iraq, remains respectable among many on the liberal left.

The details of my case for execution can be found in the chapter entitled 'Cruel and Unusual' in my book 'A Brief History of Crime' (Atlantic Books, 2003). Far from provoking rational response from the audience I was aiming at, the chapter led to at least one reviewer, who I had previously regarded with respect as an honourable opponent, launching an extravagant personal attack on me. Even so, I urge this chapter on anyone who is genuinely interested in this subject, though not on the sort of person who makes up his mind beforehand. They are not grown up enough for this sort of thing, and should stick to reading books by people they agree with, for fear of being upset by the existence of differing opinions.

My point about police shootings, and about the killings of Uday, Qusay and Mustafa Hussein (Mustafa being an innocent 14-year-old caught up in the crossfire) is directed at those who advance the 'innocent death' and 'obscene ritual ' arguments. Just because you abolish the formal death penalty, you don't end state killing. Which do you prefer - the shoot-out in the street, or due process? You cannot actually say you are against both, in Britain at least. It's a direct choice between one or the other. Pre-1960s Britain didn't have armed police or shoot-outs in the streets. Now it does. The first armed police squad was set up within months of the abolition of the death penalty, following the gun murder of three police officers outside Wormwood Scrubs prison. Coincidence? No. Direct consequence.

And isn't the ritual a necessary by-product of that due process? At the end of a formal, careful trial you can't just drag the condemned man off to the gallows. The fact that Saddam Hussein's death came to resemble a lynching at the end has a lot to do with the flawed nature of his 'trial'. Why was it flawed? Because it was founded not on lawfulness but on a violent usurpation of power by foreign invaders whose motives and methods were in doubt, and whose past connections with Saddam were dubious.

How is the destruction of three lives by anti-tank shells, and the public display of two of their blasted corpses, less obscene than the events in Baghdad execution shed?

A small point here about deterrence. Nobody seriously imagines that all murder can be deterred. Some people will always think they can get away with it, or just not believe they will be punished. What is suggested is that certain types of murder can be deterred, as can crimes of violence which might lead to murder. Here are three examples of how it might operate. When Britain suspended the death penalty in 1948 and 1957, armed crime rose sharply on each occasion, falling again when the suspensions ended. The number of attempted murders and woundings which endanger life have both risen enormously since hanging was abolished in Britain in 1965. Many of these would have been homicides had medical treatment not improved so much in the same period. And in the USA there is evidence that 'stranger murders' - that is the killing of petrol station and shop staff after robberies, or women after being raped, to prevent them being witnesses, have increased since the death penalty ceased to operate as a general punishment, i.e. effectively since the 1960s. These may be coincidences, though the 1948 and 1957 rises in English armed crime are remarkably similar coincidences. You could only be sure that there was a connection if you were prepared to experimentally restore an effective death penalty for some years.

I accept that an absolute pacifist can consistently oppose the death penalty. If you really believe that there are no circumstances in which killing is justified, then you can honestly say that you are against execution on principle. But be careful here. If you believe this, then you presumably believe that resistance, even against the most evil powers on earth, must be non-violent. You would have to say that the RAF Battle of Britain pilots of the late summer of 1940 were wrong to shoot down their Luftwaffe opponents. Would Mr Valentine Hayes, who maintains he is against all killing, be prepared to live (or more likely die in misery after a lengthy period of brutalised enslavement) in a world which gave such a free pass to violent evil? Or is it all right if other people defend him against it? This, it will be argued, is an extreme example. But all such arguments are tested by extremes, and such an extreme example is available in the recent history of our civilised, progress-infested world. If Mr Hayes really means it, then he really means it. Does he? Or is he, like almost all people, prepared to make an exception when it affects him personally?

I'm also baffled by Mr Hayes's suggestion that the use of the word 'execution' or the term 'death penalty' is 'PC' or 'pretentious'. Whatever does he mean by this? PC universally disapproves of the death penalty, and the phrase seems to me to be the opposite of pretentious, being honest and simple. It is most certainly PC to pretend that murder and execution are the same thing. Murder is secret, lawless premeditated killing, generally for a base motive, malice, vengeance, gain or the silencing of a witness to another crime already committed or contemplated. There is no possibility of mercy. Lawful execution is the reverse. The victim's family and friends are specifically denied personal vengeance. Nobody gains materially. No witness is silenced -on the contrary, he has the chance to testify in open court. Due process is observed, public and press scrutiny take place before the act. There is the chance to appeal, and the possibility of reprieve. You may not like execution - nobody is asking you to - but that does not mean you should be unable to tell the difference between two wholly different acts.

The great 19th Century liberal (they were different in those days) John Stuart Mill was brilliantly dismissive of this false equivalence of opposites, in a pro-hanging speech to Parliament in April 1868. He argued (and the speech may be found on the web in full) "that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice. Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."

The same distinction needs to be made when we consider the strange way in which many (there are honourable exceptions) modern left-wingers are unmoved by mass abortion, dehumanising the unborn baby as a 'foetus', a Latin word employed (as usual) to hide the truth of what is going on. The difference lies in the nature of the person being killed. All unborn babies are innocent. None gets a trial, or the chance to argue its case before it is killed - killed, by the way, in circumstances much grislier than any execution. You will never be allowed to see an abortion on British TV. Its individual life is not even admitted to exist, as lawyers insist that the only 'right to choose' belongs to the baby's mother. The fierce, homicidal influence often exerted on these "free to choose" mothers by husbands and boyfriends is never even mentioned. There is no chance at all of killing a guilty person by this method.

Now, if they were consistently against the killing of anybody, surely they'd have to be against this ganging up of adults on innocent children? But they're often not. You ask them why. Try as I may to put myself in the position of the pro-abortion anti-hanger, I can't get the argument to work. It can only be done by insisting that a baby is not human until a certain (or rather, uncertain) date, set to suit the abortionist rather than the baby, which is understandably not asked if it considers itself human at this stage, or would have considered itself human at this stage if it had survived a little longer and been allowed a say. If you're against hanging, you must also be against abortion. But you can be for hanging murderers and against abortion. The key is innocence or guilt, and beneath that lies the ideal of lawful justice, which is what we are actually talking about.

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I bumped into this site by accident, but the facts are since we abolished hanging in this country murders have risen massively. Significantly they are still increasing year on year. Real deterrents are needed, and prior to being abolished this was a deterrent. The main resistance is because of the possibility of hanging an innocent individual. The answer to this is to simply hang only those bang to rights initially. The the individuals who protest of a miscarriage of justice, they should be able to provide some fleeting evidence that they were not involved. The state should automatically want to confirm that they were innocent, and should enthusiastically investigate the claims. As soon as we prove their innocense they are released, and we search again for the real perpatrator. Interestingly the Police who shot the Brazilian on the tube demonstrated the sheer blood lust and ill discipline of the police firearms officers. Nine bullets to the head, and he was certainly not guilty of any crime let alone murder. This was in effect an execution, and yet many people are opposed to executions for convicted murderers. The murderer in this case was the British police. Yet they are not guilty, now this was not the hanging of an innocent man, that the liberals in the UK constantly cite as the reason to oppose hanging. Why are they not condemning this with equal fervour? As an ex military guy 23 years RAF, any group of military guys would have handled that incident with more composure and discipline. Difficult as the job of a Policeman may be, it seems we have a significant number of innocent lives lost each year as the hands of our police force. Are they really trained well enough for the current role. Consistancy in the way the laws are applied for murder could see a dramatic reduction in murders in our communities, we are losing control

The death penalty is an interesting an emotive subject, forgive me if I do not come across at your level. I must a few questions.

Did not Hitler himself have an extremely proficient method of providing the death penalty for the disabled, jews, and others he did not like not bad 6 million souls murdered because well they simply were not German?.

How about the Romans, with their crucifixions. Did Barrabus deserve to be crucified? Did Christ?

Then Polpot springs to mind, or perhaps Vlad the Impaler, Idi Amin Perhaps.

All of these people had adequate death sentences.

And then one must ask does America have the best Human Rights record in the world.

No, perhaps that belongs to Mahatma Ghandi.

I am a Christian, I oppose the death sentence not on some higher moral ground, or from some socialist perch. I oppose it because it can so easily be misused by political psychotics.

Is it impossible for a "Hitler" to rule in this country? Maybe but I don't know.

What I do believe that governments can misuse powers such as this and that it is much easier to use something that has already been introduced than to introduce it as a law.

There are some horrendous crimes committed, some may well be worthy of death. After all it was Christ himself that said it would be better a millstone be cast around a mans neck and to be cast into the sea if he harms one of these little ones.

However we must be extremely careful, when trying to justify such a move and let not the blindness of hate so easily guide us as it did those I have mentioned above in the first three paragraphs.

Anyone willing to accept that the return of the death penalty must also accept that 'British Justice' will send innocents to their death.
Understand this. Innocent victims aren't kept for your convenience in some kind of sealed off waiting room so rendering you fireproof from our legal lottery. I lead a blameless, quiet life, and then found myself arrested, charged, tried and guilty of a crime not only that I was innocent of, but as it turned out, didn't happen; and later, whilst in prison, discovered from my solicitor that both the police and prosecution had witheld evidence during the trial proving the crime had never happened on the basis that, under English law, only evidence, not truth, is relevant, and to be further told that, what had happened to me was far from an isolated incident. Remember in your prayers, Steven Kishco, a man found guilty of a murder that both the prosecution and police KNEW he didn't do and happily saw him jailed for life for the murder of a little girl.
May his soul rest in peace and pray YOU never be another Steven Kishco.

John R says: "The argument for no such penalty because an innocent person may die is no argument at all. If this truly concerns you, then why aren't you campaigning to abolish any sentence whatsoever?"

It's no argument at all? It must be cold up where you are, cold indeed. Your question is baffling and the answer so obvious I find it difficult to believe you asked it. Prison sentences carry the possibility of release, of parole, of injustices being corrected, of new evidence being discovered, of an unjustly imprisoned person still being able to see his family and the people he loves and for them not to lose that person forever. The death penalty, as if it needs saying but you felt the need to ask, allows for no such possibility. But hey - You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, can you?

For those that found the actual video of a hanging too barbaric to bear, spare a thought for the crime. For those on death row in the US, endless soppy liberal actors and film-makers love to join their campaign to show how caring they are, with cameras rolling and pictures of the sad-looking condemned. What you do not see on camera is the the look of glee on that face as he raped a child, or as he killed a family, and the cameras can't show you the bleeding gas station attendant with brains spattered on the walls, because there were no cameras there.

Life is snuffed out every second, and can be very cheap. If you know that you may hang for the crime you are about to commit, where is your objection to being executed if caught? It takes courage to have a death penalty, and this country has none.

The argument for no such penalty because an innocent person may die is no argument at all. If this truly concerns you, then why aren't you campaigning to abolish any sentence whatsoever? If mistakes are made, then innocent people may spend years behind bars, so it's okay to torture them in this manner, but not to hang them? This article is one of the most intelligent you could ever read, on one of the important topics. I have not read a single comment that refutes any of Peter's points.

Imagine if the death penalty had still been in place at the time of the Guildford and Birmingham bombings. Ten more innocent lives would have been snatched away to add to the ones taken away by the bombs themselves. That is the principal reason why I oppose the death penalty. I would have no problem in condemning a completely guilty murderer to the rope, but errors are made by the courts and by juries. It is not 100% foolproof, and that is the only reason I can give for not supporting it.

Liberal Christians, I have found time and again, and much like moderate Muslim clerics, tend to present arguments on the basis that very few people have actually read their scriptures. I haven't read the entire bible but I have read all of the Pentateuch and the New Testament. So I know where to turn to find out where God gives us the Ten Commandments. In Exodus 20, where he does this, he immediately demands further animal sacrifice and then in the subsequent Chapter 21 (although God does not pause for breath in between Chapters) He lists all those things that a man should be put to death for (e.g. verse 12: ‘whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death’ etc)

Nowhere in the New Testament does Christ speak out against the death penalty, but he does say in Matthew ‘think not that I have come to replace the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.’

I am not quibbling here – people pretend the scriptures are ‘open to interpretation’ when books such as Exodus could not be more unambiguously worded. But I do not speak as a believing Christian (I’m not) – any belief system is irrelevant in this argument – which should be concerned only with how a civil society should best operate

I am also convinced that this debate is hopeless for two reasons

1/ People have clearly not read all of the article they are disparaging because they are restating arguments that Peter has already set out to refute in the text- they should be trying to answer Peter’s refutations, not restating the original contention ( i e Peter has given a prime example of the death penalty as a deterrent to armed crime ( it actually seems to me inarguable, but there you go) Now it is up to you in your turn to give us concrete examples that show why you think the death penalty may not be a deterrent- and that is not just restating that there is still murder in the US when Peter’s contention is that the death penalty exists there for political reasons and is used so rarely its deterrent effect is negligible)

2/ We are living under a totalitarian system and the name that it has given to its European manifestation is ‘the European Union’ and it does not even permit debate of the death penalty in the British Parliament. An underlying theme which Peter often touches on is the paradox that we are living in a totalitarian environment with a liberal agenda (truth is to be found in paradoxes) – we have a great deal less punishment of crime, a great deal more actual crime and simultaneously a great deal more surveillance and criminal records for people who have committed no actual crime (but might, for example have expressed a view that ‘some might regard as offensive,’ or overfed their pet dog)

In the end we should stop talking about Left and Right altogether and either oppose totalitarianism, which necessarily means dismantling the European Union and restoring independence to all the constituent countries – or openly expressing our support for Totalitarianism – because everybody who supports the European Union necessarily supports Totalitarianism. That is a debate worth getting your teeth into.

Like Peter, I oppose flogging for the same reason - its also not the British way, as is the rather simplistic way that certain topics seem to now be debated in some quarters. Why can't people from both sides of the political spectum be more constructive when holding an argument. I know that some of the 'Guardianistas' and their sort of opposite 'Murdochistas' can be very witty and sharp in debate but sadly this more the exception rather than the rule. I've noticed that people who have critizised the misspelling of our language have used the hoary expression 'hang 'em, flog 'em' which, to my mind at least, looks lazy and tired. I'm just surprised that a certain maker of breakfast cereals hasn't had a 'free cut-out politcal opinion, read out in debates - see side of pack' feature yet.

We can solve the problem of criminality relatively quickly when we have the replacements to our clapped-out big political parties installed in the Palace of Westminster.

One thing I can't get my head round is this: How can Christians square "forgive those who trespass agains us" with "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". Those two concepts just seem at odds with each other?

I saw a thought-provoking statement the other day: "An eye for an eye makes the world a blind place". Something to think about perhaps?

Andrew Platt says, “The death penalty is a deterrant, of that there can be no doubt”. Really? How nice it must be for you to be so sure of something like that. I think there’s some pretty healthy room for a lot of doubt as to how true that statement is. Murder rates in those states in the US which still retain the death penalty are not exactly small. What are you basing that statement on? Your comment “Why not?” I find reprehensible.

So “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” IS a silly cliché, but “Guardian-reading liberals” is not because it’s “true”. Glad that’s been cleared up, thanks. If only everyone could argue with such lucidity and evidence of sound reason.

Once again a thoughtful and well laid out response. The debate is not an easy one and clearly there is a great divide in opinion over this subject. But what consistantly amazes me is the almost total lack of reasond arguments comming back from fellow commentators who claim to hold the contrary view. Almost without exception, their comments are aimed at you personally and make scant effort to seriously explain their side. Not just on this, but on just about every topic you discuss! Witness 'Jaq's' predictable ascerbic replies week in week out. Is this and many others, some organised attempt to stifle debate, or are they simply unable to understand the argument and take the easy route of launching personal attacks?

To Mr Hayes. Whats wrong with vengeance? If somebody raped and murdered my 3 year old daughter I would like to see them executed. I would have no problem about pulling the lever. This is a far better way than keeping somebody locked up for 7 years and then releasing them so they can murder somebody else.

I feel sorry for you that you find it "disturbing and tragic", that families who have lost love ones call for the Death penalty. Maybe you should get out more.

I keep saying against the tide if there were a Death Penalty for a start for killers of Police Officers such as the murder of Sharon Beshenevisky would the killer think twice if he knew he would be killed in turn? I suggest that he would.
If the penalty was known in advance that it was a life for a life the killer would not be able to complain that he never knew.
Before Hanging was abolished we the GULLIBLE public was told Life would mean Life but of course Life means a few years 15 on average with a few whole life tariffs.
Murders of children would be next and in fact why should we pay to keep killers in jail moaning about their human rights. Most killers are inhuman otherwise why would they kill in cold blood. its the liberal softies who moan and plead forgiveness as per Long Longford. Myra Hindley died in Jail a long lingerring incareceration was THAT humane ? No way.If there is remorse let them show it on the gallows. Hussein didnt none of them do. Put a vote to the public on Capital Punishment.

"The bombing of Serbia, unlike that of Iraq, remains respectable among many on the liberal Left." Very true, I agree. But surely the big question is just "Why" the bombing of Serbia remains respectable among such people, and the bombing of Iraq does not. Both Slobodan and Saddam were mean men, who thrived on inter-ethnic tensions and condemned those who weren't of their kind (Bosnians, Kurds, Croats and Shi'ites to name but a few) to brutality and murder, so why exactly is there a difference between the indiscriminate bombings of their respective peoples? I'd be interested to know what you think makes the difference, Peter.

Mr. Hitchens: To begin, I trust it is clear to all readers that you, like most of the rest of the hanging lobby, have simply dodged the difficult issue as to whether you would be personally willing to execute another man. It's not that you have "never understood the abolitionists' obsession" with this point, rather it is that you are simply unable to face up to certain hard truths.

Let us recap for a minute: it is your contention that if a murderer is executed, other persons will be deterred from killing in the future, thus saving many innocent lives. It is not merely right and just that people like the vile Mr. Huntley be hanged, it is in fact positively vital. The lives of other young innocents are likely on the line. Yet, with so much at stake, you *still* cannot bring yourself to swing the lever and complete this crucial, life-saving act. What does that tell you, Peter? I am quite sure I know what it tells me. It is that for all your pontificating in support of state killing, in the end you do not - as a Christian cannot - truly believe in it.

I have examined your long paragraph about a nations military machine several times, and my understanding as to how it fits into your argument decreases with each reading. A civilised country like the UK arms itself as an act of prudence, necessary in this unstable world for the eventuality that it may be attacked by an aggressor nation. When Mr. Hitler sought to eliminate the RAF and flatten London in 1940-41, it was regrettably necessary that German lives be taken in order to preserve the British people and nation.

This is national self-defence, not premeditated murder like the death penalty, and it is precisely the same principle as personal self-defense. Walking home from work, I do not seek a confrontation with that dubious looking character loitering on the street. But if he produces a knife and proceeds to assault me, then I must and will do all I can to protect myself, possibly taking his life in the process.

You seem to be suggesting that shooting down that German bomber-pilot over Kent is exactly akin to the cold execution of a convicted murderer. You are taking the term "premeditated" absolutely literally in what I suspect to be one of your numerous attempts to duck and weave your way out of my point. The former scenario is an immediate act of self-defence necessary to preserve British lives on the streets of London. (It is directly comparable to my tussle with the knife-wielding assailant.) We did not seek this fight, and regret that there is clearly no alternative to the German aircraft being shot down. Our preferred outcome is that the aircraft will crash into an empty field, with the German air-crew bailing out and being captured alive on the ground. Of course this could well be impossible. But what else can we do? We are under attack.

But in the death-penalty scenario you wish to take in cold-blood the life of a man who, if properly incarcerated, can never kill again.

Let me ask you about the Morgenthau plan. This plan proposed, in short, to obliterate Germany as a viable nation state in the aftermath of the Second World War. Parts of the plan proposed turning vast swathes of previously industrial Germany into pastureland, quite possibly condemning millions of Germans to death by starvation. Thankfully the proposal was never implemented. But was this plan justified? After all, the German people democratically elected the Nazi aggressors into power, and supported in huge numbers most of it's policies, certainly in the earlier stages of the war. Their guilt and responsibility were very much collective.

If executing a dangerous individual is required to deter other persons from killing in the future, would not the Morgenthau plan, and all that it entailed, have been necessary to deter other nations from electing aggressive, murderous regimes into office? Do you think the Morgenthau plan was justifiable, Peter? Somehow, I very much doubt it - and the prosperous, peaceful Germany of today proves you right.

In the final analysis the argument in favour of the death penalty fails because so many of it's proponents cannot bring themselves to admit to what is so patently their true motivation: namely pure and simple vengeance, the "eye for an eye" lusting so beloved of the followers of certain 'Christian' religions. It is disturbing, it is tragic, and it is deeply embittered. You cannot execute a murderer without becoming him. Another correspondent asked for an alternative. I do not claim to know what the answer is. But I absolutely know what it is not.

Sorry Peter. You dismiss my main objection to the death penalty, i.e. that an innocent may be executed in a couple of sentences. This to me is the only reason why we shouldn't go back to hanging. To dismiss it because in other situations we can't guarantee there will be no danger to innocents is nonsense, two wrongs never make a right. You say you don't advocate flogging because of the effect on the floggers, yet you don't express similar concern for the executors, perhaps we shouldn't worry about the state of mind of anybody who is prepared to kill, although I think they are scary people. If the death penalty is to be used as a deterrent, then we should make it as violent, bloody and frightening as possible, hang drawing and quartering perhaps? Do we not have any regard to the families of these people, especially if the mistake has been made, I remember when Sutcliffe was sent down, his father asked his fellow prisoners not to beat him up, because he was his father and he had suffered enough, if we accept that fathering such a monster is punishment. On the other hand, I regard life imprisonment as possibly a harsher punishment, although having not been presented with the choice, I don't really know. Maybe we should offer a way out to those who want it, it seems crazy to spend a fortune stopping some one like Huntley from committing suicide, when it seems he wants to go. In response to Kevin Peat. A Christian who is prepared to kill? Glad I left the church. Regards Jeff P.

"If an innocent person hangs but the murder rate is quartered, how many innocent lives will have been saved? It's simple logic".

I'm puzzled by this remark. How does a possible (but theoretical) drop in murder rates justify hanging people who have turned out to be erroneously executed? If a loved one of yours were executed in error, would you feel the same?

The DP may have a detterent effect. However, people are always going to commit murder, whatever punishment we have in place-- even then not all murderers get caught (or the wrong person is convicted). So many innocent lives still won't be saved.

I support life (and I mean life) imprisonment, in the grottiest cells in a "no-frills" prison. If I were to have been rightly convicted of murder, I would rather be hanged than spend the rest of my years festering in a dank cell. Therefore I would see that as more of a deterrent than being executed.

I too find it shocking that people can serve as little 10 years in our prisons for murder, which are apparently becoming getting more and more like holiday camps. Life should mean life, in a "proper prison". Least then if there has been a mistake, than the person can be released, which leads me onto my next point..

How many people a year get wrongly convicted for murder in year-- genuine question? Also do we really trust the police or government with the death penalty? I really worry about the amount of "fit-ups" that might take place.

Also my comments on the previous thread could be a point of discussion on this thread:

"Obviously we would hang people found guilty of murder or terrorism. What about assisted murder or assisted suicide? What would be the minimum age we would hang people at? What about people who are indirectly responsible for murder (somebody who hired an assassin for instance)? What about manslaughter/culpable homicide? Why or, or why not, would we hang people in *these* circumstances?"

Again genuine questions, not rhetorical ones. I don't feel that strongly either way about the death penalty, I can be persuaded either way-- but I prefer to err on the side of caution for now.

It is precisely because life is so precious that abortion is wrong and the death penalty is right. Death is the complete opposite to life in every way. The innocent should be protected; those guilty of murder should not. You can only gain by being alive. You can never gain if you are dead.

First, I would ask Mr Hayes:in what way is the killing of soldiers, sailors or airmen of an aggressor nation by trained armed forces in self-defence not 'premeditated'? Any nation which seriously intends to defend itself maintains such trained forces. What are they trained to do? Kill or maim the enemy. What are they equipped with? Deadly weapons and the means of transporting them. I might add that the preparations for this violence are infused with elaborate hierarchical ritual and preparation: marching bands, splendid uniforms, parades, trooping of colours, award of medals for valour, blessing of standards by religious ministers, remembrance services for those who die on our side, etc, This is of course done for deterrent purposes, and the violence is held in reserve in the hope that it will not need to be used, just as the state holds the gallows in reserve to defend itself against heinous murder, by putting fear into the hearts of those contemplating such murder. The principle is identical - organised, premeditated, disciplined violence, lawfully controlled, publicised, and held in readiness as a protection against attack. It is also often employed as a punishment after any such attack (for if not used in retaliation, it loses any power in future). You cannot consistently oppose this principle when it is used against individual murderers, and support it when it is used against nations.
It is sophistry to pretend that special bodies of armed men, trained to kill and provided with lethal weapons, will not at some stage DO some killing. This applies to armed police, who are less disciplined than soldiers and given more individual initiative over when to use their weapons, even more than it does to the armed forces. To try to wriggle out of your inconsistency by pretending that 'premeditation' separates lawful execution from lawful warfare is feeble. Nothing is more premeditated than the financing, equipping and training of an army, navy and air force. Either you are against the taking of life in all circumstances, or you allow that there are sometimes just reasons for the taking of life. If you allow such reasons, then you will have to engage properly in the argument, rather than avoiding it as you seek to do by making this false separation. Otherwise, just admit that you are a soppy pacifist.

Some other points. In my preferred 'civilised alternative' to the Saddam semi-lynching, the main feature of the execution is its speed, not its decorousness, though those present were certainly expected to dress (and behave) in a sober manner for reasons that really shouldn't need explaining. Before abolition, hangings in British prisons often took less than 30 seconds from the condemned man's arrival in the execution shed to his death. Saddam Hussein's hanging seemed to go on for hours, from his handovere to the drop.

I've never understood the abolitionists' obsession with the question about 'would you personally be prepared to push the lever?' Anyone would be reluctant to do this in reality, however much they might boast in the abstract about their willingness, and I'm grateful that certain individuals have been ready to do so on my behalf, just as I'm glad that others have gone to war on my behalf. This is emotionalism, not reason.

Oh, and 'Guardian-reading liberals' is not a silly cliche ( as 'hang'em and flog'em' is) . It is a sensible cliche, being true.

They say there are no journalists left in mainstream Media (one of the three big M's Medicine Pharmo,Military and Media, who are entitled to make preemptive, horrific,torturing war on economies and global resources)
only paid hands?

I am very much opposed to the death penalty
because gender,race and class make a huge difference to who is going to get "strung up" and who is not.The lawyers have this country in a vise.No woman or rich celebrity
will be threatened,in fact if there is a "death penalty" it is doubtful in fact if a lot of cases will ever get to court.There is no going back.

It is precisely because life is so precious that the death penalty is the proper punishment for all murderers. Nobody wants to die. You can only continue to get something out of life by being alive. Death is the complete opposite of life in everyway.

There is something more basic here than whether the death penalty should be re-introduced or not. There are a large number of people in this country who simply have no respect for other people or their property and nobody has, as yet, given me a satisfactory explanation of why this is. I spend a lot of time in Germany an in most towns there are cigarette machines placed every few hundred yards along the main streets. They are never vandalised and when I ask my German friends why this is so they look at me increduously. If we had them over here they'd be smashed to bits in minutes.
There is no way I could contemplate reintroducing execution with our judicial system in the chaos it is. The police are almost universally incompetent except when it's a very high profile murder then they seem to grab the first person they can and stitch him up. I would be unthinkable to allow execution with a majority verdict from the jury - another bit of tinkering with a system that worked for centuries.
I am also puzzled that convicted paedophiles are put on a sex register when they are released from prison I was always under the impression that once a sentence had been served the ex-prisoner was free to do as he chose under the law. If these people are still a danger then why were they released from prison? I expect very soon now we shall hear the paedophiles have rights.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.